Reverend Jax Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 About once a year, Hollywood releases a movie to appeal to the goth and goth wannabe crowd. Sometimes they fall flat (Dracula 2000, Resident Evil), but mostly, they're good (The Crow, Blade, Interview with a Vampire, Dark City. The Matrix). Underworld falls into the latter category. It doesn't have that special something to propel it to Crow-like cult status or Matrix-like mass appeal, but it's a movie at no time during the screening did I regret spending my time or money on. I had the impression that it would have a Romeo and Juliet parallel much like West Side Story, but the parallel wasn't as obvious as I suspected. There were a much of nice twists and convolutions that keep it interesting without losing anyone in the audience. And the action was great and non stop. Obviously, Blade is the movie to compare this to. While it's not quite as good as Blade, I think who enjoy Blade will enjoy Underworld. So if you liked Blade, go see it. PS Anyone who bitches about the story not being accurate to vampire lore, like saying that the vampires in the movie were far too weak and not fast enough, is a fucking douche bag. Movies have near-full reign to rework vampire lore all they want for the purposes of their movie. As long as vampires need to suck blood and can't be exposed to direct sunlight, it's fine! Movies can make them as fast/slow as they want, strong/weak as they want, and mix and match any of the other weaknesses/myths (crosses, garlic, coffins, etc). So quit yer bitchin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unidentified Source Posted September 23, 2003 Share Posted September 23, 2003 Greatly looking forward to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unidentified Source Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Any feedback on this yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 Seems, I'm the only one on the board who's seen it. SiBob, Junka, you seen it? Course not, if you had, you've have posted. But I stick to my statement: If you liked Blade, you'll like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cathy Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Ok, Jax.....Underworld: Awakening is coming out soon. I couldn't find any other thread on the 2nd or 3rd ones. I like all three and have all three on Blueray. I am infatuated with the concept of the hybrid and can't wait to see what they do with that in this next one coming out. I also want to know what the hell is going on and why she is separated from Michael. The trailer pissed me off when it showed that. And WHO is that little girl? Too many questions. I just hope this one can hold its candle to the first three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I want to know how this series is 9 years old and their CG sucks as much on what I've seen of this current movie as it did way back in 2003. The practical effects have always been great in these movies (except the hybrid wolfpire, that thing just looks stupid) but good Christ does the CG look bad. I know these things make money, why haven't they stepped it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 while we're on that tangent: baytor, in a general ballpark, is even semi-competent CG supposed to run you way more, way less or nearly the same as good costume/effects? again, i know it's a fucking anomaly but you look at the famous separating head scene in The Thing and it feels timeless compared to say, some of those WWF moves in Blade 2. i'm wondering why rubbery CG seems to be all the rage, if it's actually cheaper at this point or simply easier overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 See, it's not a matter of price, it's a matter of talent. District 9 had CG that will stand up for years to come and it was made on a ludicrously small budget for such an effects-heavy movie. A lot of the CG techs at the moment started out in the video games industry which is why a lot of CG creations looks like game cinematics. Also there's a current trend to take really good practical effects and enhance it with CG to make it "look more real" which really just makes it look more fake (See: The Mist, the remake of The Thing.) This isn't really a new thing because the same could be said of stop-and-go animation in the day (not everyone could be Ray Harryhausen) and there's even bits of The Thing that you can tell were clay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 related: "how computers killed movies", wanna see ryan's take. ... It was tragic, but a tremendous relief to hear someone on “the inside” acknowledge the problem. They all spoke of digital effects the way surgeons might describe cancer: as a terrible, destructive reality that provides them with a career. They admitted to deep sadness over the state of their industry, and expressed genuine regret over their participation in the cavalcade of trons and shreks that pass as today’s blockbuster entertainment. They went on to praise original effects demigods, from George Pal and Ray Harryhausen to Rick Baker and Dave Allen, speaking about the endless inspiration that these bartists provided. And the discussion ended with a resigned group shrug. ... I’ve actually overheard people jeer the “cheesy ‘80s effects” of John Carpenter’s original (flawless) The Thing, while these same alleged adults are content to swallow the Sharktopus-caliber machinations of Machete and Ghost Rider. Somehow, we’re expected to accept that the last two iterations of The Incredible Hulk are any less laughable than Lou Ferrigno’s green nipples. ... There’s a basic reality inherent in traditional effects work that subconsciously trumps the most expensive technology, an involuntary viewer recognition of Real vs. Not-Real. When you see professional daredevil Dar Robinson take a 220-foot freefall in the 1981 movie Sharky’s Machine, you’re watching a goddamn human being jump 22 stories straight to the pavement. Even when Bela Lugosi wrestles a lifeless rubber octopus in Ed Wood’s notorious Bride of the Monster, it’s a skilled performer physically interacting with an actual object, and the widely-mocked result is honestly every bit as compelling as anything we’ve seen from the upcoming $200,000,000 John Carter movie. ... In fact, this once-great director [Tim Burton] may serve as the best example of the industry’s rampant CGI holocaust. In just a little over a decade, his visionary output degraded to his reliable sad-fairy-tale-with-swirly-shit formula, devoid of any of the spark that made his early work identifiable, much less enjoyable. The characteristic hand-crafted creatures that defined A Tim Burton Movie gave way to downloaded gorillas and Wii-ready fairytale adaptations. ... Take for example Real Steel, a $110,000,000-budgeted flash-in-the-box-office that required 219 credited parties to digitally activate some blue-collar mandroids to punch each other among dusty trailer parks and other earthly locations. Now compare that to Jim Henson’s 1982 film The Dark Crystal, where less than half that number of effects artists collaborated to create AN ENTIRE GODDAMN PLANET, sculpting every form of life by hand and making them all breathe and burrow into our collective imagination forever. An impossible and perfectly executed undertaking, completed for a total cost of $15,000,000 (or $35,000,000 in today’s bucks), a fraction of the price of the next Jennifer Aniston comedy. (yeah, ill move all of this talk soon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cathy Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I saw Underworld Awakening! I loved it, however I am a die-hard fan. Nothing about these flicks can make me give bad reviews, whatever anyone else says. I am not going to say anything about it, no hidden spoilers. I want to wait for Jax to see it and see what he has to say..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.